ÿWPCN 3# ÚUNå %3 0(9baw@i4©½Ì BÔñU@ñe1 0J2 0D| 0TÀÆ 0^Ú 0h8 AQ  0Dñ 0r5 0|§ 0†# 0© 1u9 0d® 0@ D3R D/… B´ U>Ñ U * B)9 DCb AM¥  ò v~ývÓ{˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- TEUVDWXDYZD[\Ó€]äzz!3|x] d ɸ·`(ZapfCalligr BTTT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô$(Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò 'ÿÿdxd**'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d----7Border 1dd$.Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ€,ÔÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€,XÔó óÌò òÔ€,¼ÔÔ"USú ú, úÔÔ ƒ ÔÔ!  Ôó óÔ€,XÔÌÌò òCecil€Crowson,€Jr.Ô€Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€ÂÔÔ€,ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellate€Court€Clerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€ÔÔ€XÔPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€,ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€öXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÞ ÞÌIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€JACKSONÌÌSEPTEMBER€SESSION,€1996ÌÌ̜ـÙÓ  ÓßR€/0.A1-j|é â `€€@ÿRß›STATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9510„CC„00324Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHENRY€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JULIAN€P.€GUINNó óÌò òMICHAEL€BELLEW,ó óà àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Direct€œAppeal„Motor€VehicleÏOffender)›Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌGUY€T.€WILKINSONà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ24th€Judicial€DistrictÌP.€O.€Box€663à àà àà àà àMARY€ANNE€QUEENÌCamden,€TN€€38320à àà àà àLegal€AssistantÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àELLEN€H.€POLLACKÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€€TN€€37219ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àROBERT€RADFORDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.€O.€Box€686Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHuntingdon,€TN€€38344ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇòòò òÓ  ÓÔ€,„ÔOPINIONó óóóÔ€,ŠÔÌÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÔ€,XÔà àAppellant€Michael€Bellew€pled€guilty€in€the€Henry€County€Circuit€Court€toÏoperating€a€motor€vehicle€in€violation€of€the€Motor€Vehicle€Habitual€Offenders€Act.€ÏAs€a€Range€I€standard€offender,€Appellant€received€a€sentence€of€two€years€in€theÏTennessee€Department€of€Correction.€€In€this€direct€appeal,€he€presents€theÏfollowing€issue:€whether€his€sentence€is€excessiveÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓI.€€FACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óÓ  Óà àOn€November€7,€1994,€a€Henry€County€GrandÏJury€indicted€Appellant€for€driving€on€a€revoked€license€in€violation€of€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€Section€55„50„504.€€He€was€also€indicted€for€failing€to€abide€byÏthe€terms€of€his€habitual€offender€status€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏSection€55„10„616.€€On€April€13,€1995,€Appellant€pled€guilty€to€violating€the€MotorÏVehicle€Habitual€Offenders€Act.€€The€first€count€of€the€indictment€was€dismissed.€ÏFollowing€a€sentencing€hearing€on€May€22,€1995,€the€trial€court€imposed€aÏsentence€of€two€years.€€Ì€Ìò òÓ  ÓII.€€SENTENCINGó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€alleges€that€his€sentence€is€excessive.€€He€argues€that€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€determining€the€length€of€his€sentence€by€failing€to€apply€certainÏapplicable€mitigating€factors.ÌÌà àWhen€an€appeal€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€service€of€aÏsentence,€this€Court€conducts€a€òòde€novoóó€review€with€a€presumption€that€theÏdetermination€of€the€trial€court€was€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)Ï(1990).€€However,€this€presumption€of€correctness€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€theÏaffirmative€showing€that€the€trial€court€in€the€record€considered€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2dÏ166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€the€event€that€the€record€fails€to€demonstrate€suchÏconsideration,€review€of€the€sentence€is€purely€òòde€novoóó.€€òòId.óó€€If€appellate€reviewÏreflects€that€the€trial€court€properly€considered€all€relevant€factors€and€its€findings€ofÏfact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€this€Court€must€affirm€the€sentence,Ïð ðeven€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.ðð€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2dÏ785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€In€conducting€a€review,€this€Court€must€considerÏthe€evidence,€the€presentence€report,€the€sentencing€principles,€the€arguments€ofÏcounsel,€the€nature€and€character€of€the€offense,€mitigating€and€enhancementÏfactors,€any€statements€made€by€the€defendant,€and€the€potential€for€rehabilitationÏor€treatment.€€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€860€S.W.2d€53,€60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€TheÍdefendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€the€impropriety€of€the€sentence€imposed.€ÏòòState€v.€Gregoryóó,€862€S.W.2d€574,€578€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).ÌÌà àWe€note€initially€that,€because€the€record€demonstrates€that€the€trial€courtÏadequately€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andÏcircumstances,€our€review€of€Appellantððs€sentence€will€be€òòde€novoóó€with€aÏpresumption€of€correctness.ÌÌà àIn€the€absence€of€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors,€the€presumptiveÏlength€of€sentence€for€a€Class€B,€C,€D,€and€E€felony€is€the€minimum€sentence€in€theÏstatutory€range€while€the€presumptive€length€of€sentence€for€a€Class€A€felony€is€theÏmidpoint€in€the€statutory€range.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c)€(Supp.€1995).€ÏWhere€one€or€more€enhancement€factors€apply€but€no€mitigating€factors€exist,€theÏtrial€court€may€sentence€above€the€presumptive€sentence€but€still€within€the€range.€ÏòòId.óó€ðð€40„35„210(d).€€Where€both€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€apply,€the€trialÏcourt€must€start€at€the€minimum€sentence,€enhance€the€sentence€within€the€rangeÏas€appropriate€to€the€enhancement€factors,€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€withinÏthe€range€as€appropriate€to€the€mitigating€factors.€€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€The€weightÏafforded€an€enhancement€or€mitigating€factor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€courtÏso€long€as€the€trial€court€complies€with€the€purposes€and€principles€of€theÍTennessee€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€and€its€findings€are€supportedÏby€the€record.€€òòState€v.€Hayesóó,€899€S.W.2d€175,€185€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àAppellant€was€convicted€of€violating€the€Motor€Vehicle€Habitual€Offender€Act,Ïa€Class€E€felony.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„616.€€As€a€Range€I€standardÏoffender€convicted€of€a€Class€E€felony,€Appellantððs€statutory€sentencing€range€wasÏone€to€two€years.€€òòSee€id.óó€ðð€40„35„112(a)(5).€€The€trial€court€found€the€followingÏenhancement€factors€applicable€to€the€sentence:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ „ ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓà0 à(1)€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminalÏconvictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€thoseÏnecessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range;Ìà0 à(2)€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€ofÏunwillingness€to€comply€with€the€conditions€of€aÏsentence€involving€release€in€the€community;€andÌà0 à(3)€the€felony€was€committed€while€on€probation€fromÏa€prior€felony€conviction.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓòòId.óó€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(8),€(13).€€The€trial€court€found€no€mitigating€factors.€€At€theÏconclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€imposed€a€sentence€of€twoÏyears.€€Appellant€does€not€contest€the€application€of€the€three€enhancement€factorsÏbut€maintains€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€consider€four€applicable€mitigating€factors.€ÏWe€will€address€each€in€turn.Ìœ›Ìò òÓ  Ó1.€€NO€THREAT€OF€SERIOUS€BODILY€INJURYó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€first€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€applied€mitigatingÏfactor€(1),€which€states€that€ð ð[t]he€defendantððs€criminal€conduct€neither€caused€norÏthreatened€serious€bodily€injury.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1).€€AppellantÏpoints€out€that€he€was€not€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€at€the€time€ofÏhis€arrest€and€argues€that€he€created€no€greater€threat€than€any€other€driver.€ÏHowever,€as€a€habitual€offender€with€an€extensive€record€of€driving„relatedÏoffenses,€Appellant€has€demonstrated€that€he€is€indeed€a€greater€threat€than€theÏaverage€driver.€€By€means€of€the€Motor€Vehicle€Habitual€Offenders€Act,€the€GeneralÏAssembly€of€œTennessee,›€as€a€matter€of€public€œpolicy,›€has€determined€that€certainÏdrivers€are€such€a€threat€that€they€should€not€be€allowed€to€operate€a€motor€vehicle.€ÏAppellant€is€just€such€a€driver,€and€his€presence€behind€the€wheel,€in€and€of€itself,Ïconstitutes€a€threat€of€serious€bodily€injury€to€other€drivers.€€Thus,€we€conclude€thatÏmitigating€factor€(1)€is€inapplicable.€€ÌÌò òÓ  Ó2.€€STRONG€PROVOCATIONó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€also€asserts€that€the€trial€court€should€have€applied€mitigatingÏfactor€(2),€which€states€that€ð ð[t]he€defendant€acted€under€strong€provocation.ðð€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(2).€€Appellant€argues€that,€at€the€time€of€his€arrest,€he€wasÏen€route€œto›€Michigan€to€be€with€his€family€and€to€seek€employment.€€He€fails€toÏexplain€why€it€was€necessary€for€him€to€drive€himself€cross„country,€knowing€full„well€that€any€driving€was€in€direct€violation€of€the€terms€of€his€habitual€offenderÏstatus.€€The€circumstances€surrounding€Appellantððs€decision€to€drive€to€MichiganÏfall€well€short€of€the€strong€provocation€necessary€to€mitigate€a€sentence.€€Thus,Ïmitigating€factor€(2)€is€inapplicable.€€Ìœ›ÌÌò òÓ  Ó3.€€SUBSTANTIAL€GROUNDS€TENDING€TO€EXCUSE€OR€JUSTIFYÏCRIMINAL€CONDUCTó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€next€maintains€that€the€trial€court€should€have€applied€mitigatingÏfactor€(3),€which€states€that€ð ð[s]ubstantial€grounds€exist€tending€to€excuse€or€justifyÏthe€defendantððs€conduct,€though€failing€to€establish€a€defense.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„113(3).€€Appellant€argues€that€his€desire€to€find€gainful€employment€inÏMichigan€near€his€family€constitutes€a€substantial€ground€tending€to€excuse€orÏjustify€his€actions.€€While€we€can€appreciate€the€difficulties€accompanied€with€theÏloss€of€driving€privileges,€we€do€not€believe€that€Appellantððs€interest€in€returning€toÏMichigan,€however€admirable€his€motivation€may€have€been,€rises€to€the€level€ofÏexcusing€or€justifying€his€actions.€€Thus,€mitigating€factor€(3)€is€inapplicable.Ì€€Ìò òÓ  Ó4.€€DESIRE€TO€PROVIDE€NECESSITIESó óÌÓ  Óà àFinally,€Appellant€insists€that€the€trial€court€should€have€applied€mitigatingÏfactor€(7),€which€states€that€ð ð[t]he€defendant€was€motivated€by€a€desire€to€provideÏnecessities€for€his€family€or€himself.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(7).€€In€supportÏof€the€application€of€this€factor,€Appellant€argues€that€his€decision€to€violate€theÏterms€of€his€habitual€offender€status€was€motivated€by€a€desire€to€find€employmentÏin€Michigan€so€he€could€provide€for€his€family.€€However,€mitigating€factor€(7)€isÏmore€properly€addressed€to€individuals€who,€because€of€their€destitution,€choose€toÏsteal€œbread,›€œmilk,€or€other€basic€necessities€for›€their€children€or€themselves€due€toÏtheir€dire€circumstances.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Williamsonóó,€No.€03C01„9210„CR„00371,Ï1993€WL€335433,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Sept.€1,€1993),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.ÏMar.€7,€1994).€€We€believe€that,€if€Appellant€had€the€means€to€put€fuel€in€his€car€andÏto€keep€it€in€good€working€order€for€the€trip€to€Michigan,€he€had€the€means€toÏarrange€for€some€other€form€of€travel,€whether€with€a€friend€or€family€member€or€onÏsome€form€of€public€transportation.€€Thus,€mitigating€factor€(7)€is€inapplicable.€€€€€ÌÌà àEven€if€one€or€all€of€these€mitigating€factors€applied€to€Appellantððs€sentence,Ïthe€extensiveness€of€his€criminal€history€in€the€area€of€operating€a€motor€vehicleÏand€his€repeated€willingness€to€disregard€the€terms€of€his€punishment€more€thanÏjustify€a€sentence€of€two€years.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€actedÏwithin€its€discretion€in€enhancing€Appellantððs€sentence€to€two€years.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÔ€,ŠÔà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE